especialty when we are supposed to be brought unto such an hour of temptation that we must either betray the truth through cowardise in our own apprehensions or in the apprehensions of others betray our liberties sacred and civil by a rash and precipitant suffering Sect. 3. Now this I suppose being the case of many both Ministers and People at this time there being but small hopes notwithstanding our former Civil wars and late Petition for peace but that now by the Act for Uniformity established we must either conform thereunto or suffer the penalties of the same The present duty that now lieth upon us is by all the helps we can to make a serious search into the nature of those things which are the subject matter of that Conformity enjoyned and to satisfie the conscience in this particular Whether by obedience thereunto we become not children of disobedience unto Christ who is the everlasting Father and supreme Law-giver of his Church Sect. 4. For this being a certain truth That we are never called to suffer as Christians by yielding passive obedience but when we cannot without sin yield active obedience and that no Minister I suppose is to lay down his Ministry but in as clear a case as he can lay down his Life it doth very much concern us to be perswaded in our consciences by that which hath absolutely the commanding and obliging power thereof viz. the Word of God Whether or no by yielding obedience to this Act of U ifo mity we are not Violaters of the Law of God For where no law is violated there is no transgression sin being the transgression of the law Sect. 5 And doubtless though there be as the Authors of the Pe ition for peace do intimate p. 4. an appearance of very great love to Christ in refusing conformity to things indifferent because that they judge it to be an Usurpation of his Kingly power and an accusation of his Law as unsufficient and because that they dare not be guilty of adding to or diminution of his worship or of worshipping him after any other Law then that by which they shall be judged or such as is meerly subordinate to that supposing them to be mistaken in thinking things to be so displeasing to God Sect. 6. Though this may be commendable in such cases and about such matters wherein persons are left to their own liberty and are not under the commands of their Superiours Yet when by so doing upon a mistake through their disobedience they shall violate a positive and clear Gospel precept and in suffering upon this account shall condemn the generation of the just even the practice of the primitive Christians in the Apostles dayes who did conform to indifferent things of no necessity to salvation Acts 15. and of the tender-conscienc'd Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes when they shall thereby also deprive the Church of God of their labours in the Ministry and be also matter of grief of heart to many solid and judicious Christians and thereby administer matter of horrour and great scruple of conscience in weak Christians who thence conclude that surely there must needs be many conscience-wasting sins in the use of the Common Prayer Rites and Ceremonies of the Church c. that men will suffer so much for their Non-conformity Sect. 7. I humbly conceive that a mistake in this case is of very dangerous consequence and to avoid these miserable and sinful evils is a duty incumbent and that it would argue a very great fear of displeasing of Christ and a sollicitous care of obeying him to make a diligent search into Gods Word and into the Writings of pious and learned men Before such who especially are Teachers of others shall expose themselves to the deprivation of their Ministry and thereby many good souls that delight therein to the loss thereof Sect. 8. I say they ought to be clearly and fully perswaded they are not onely Truths but Truths of so high a nature as may bear proportion with what they do expose themselves to suffer for the same I do verily believe it would be a great sin and highly displeasing to Christ if now in this juncture of time meerly to please men or avoid suffering we should do any thing whereby we might violate any Law of Christ the King of his Church If Daniel when there was a Law made forbidding him to offer unto God his daily sacrifice of prayer for 30. dayes Dan. 6.7 his conformity to this Law would have been as manifest a breach of Gods Law as for the three children to have fallen down and worship'd the golden Image at the command of the King Sect. 10. But to refuse such commands as are doubtful and disputable whether sinful or no it is not the judgment of those Worthies named in the Petition for peace pag. 18. who have taken this Non-conformity to be a sin but it must appear upon a well-grounded conviction of the conscience from Gods Word truly applyed which doth either in express terms or by a just consequence make this or that to be a sin which is now the matter of obedience by this Act otherwise we shall suffer but for our own fancies or opinions or upon a tradition received from our Forefathers And though I do believe what I have read professed in the name of many who are yet unsatisfied in the Petition for peace that you have by reading and prayer sought for satisfaction yet considering what I find asserted in the book aforesaid pag. 14. That men have not their Understandings at command who can tell what a word in season may do now especially from so unlikely and so unlook'd-for as well as from so unworthy a one as I my self Sect. 11. It is an old saying That sometimes a looker on may see more then a gamster And therefore though unconcerned in this last Act for Uniformity being in none of those capacities which call me to the observance of the same Yet sympathising with those that are scruplers and desiring that they may not thereby be exposed to those sufferings which may be the fruit of their Non-obedience and that all the ill effects thereof may be prevented Sect. 12. I have presumed to be a Remembrancer to such persons as I was sometimes to the Army to mind them of such things which I shall present from the Writings of such Non-conformists and other Divines as are now above all Interest and being dead yet speak as also from the judgment of the reverend Mr. Richard Baxter yet living By which I hope it will appear That there is not that matter of sin and danger which I do observe some do conclude and take for granted there is in yielding obedience unto the Act for Uniformity CHAP. II. Concerning subjection and obedience in general our averseness to it and the way to heal it Section 1. NOw for as much as the subject matter of Obedience to this Act for Uniformity to some appeareth so sinful that
our own particular places and callings by a lawful Authority this maketh that which was Treason in others to be a duty incumbent on us by virtue of the Oath aforesaid Sect. 6. For answer to which I humbly conceive though it be an evil thing after Vows to make inquity yet to prevent a greater evil it is that which is our great concern at this time to do that which we should have done more seriously before we entred into the said Covenant make this inquiry Whether any persons whatsoever who have no Authority from Gods Law or from the Law of the Land to alter the Government of Church and State though for so good an end as publick Reformation are a lawful Authority to impose an Oath upon others for to endeavour to do that thing which is unlawful in it self For if this appear to be the case I humbly conceive that we may lawfully make this Declaration That I hold my self or any other person bound by the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour the change or alteration of Government both in Church or State Sect. 7. In order to the clearing of this let us first to the Law and to the Testimony even unto the sacred Word of God For in the inquiry which I propound we are all to make for the satisfying of our consciences The rule I propose is first Gods Law whether any persons whatsoever who have no Authority from Gods Law to alter the Government of Church and State though for so good an end as publick Reformation are a lawful Authority to impose an Oath upon others I beseech you Brethren who do so much press for a command out of Gods word to warrant what you do to show me where there is any command of Christ or any approved example in the Holy Scriptures for subjects without the consent of their Prince and Soveraigre to swear and make others to swear that they will endeavour an alteration of Government in Church or State though for so good an end as publick Reformation Sect. 8. I must needs profess that I do not or cannot upon my own search find any precept or president for the same in the Old Testament In the New indeed I find general precepts for Christians to submit themselves to Principalities and Powers 1 Pet. 3.1 To yield obedience to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supreme or under-Governours that are sent by him c. 1 Pet. But nothing that may give warrant for this practice for subjects to bind themselves or others to endeavour any alteration of those humane creations to which they are to submit for the Lords sake Neither by an Oath or Covenant to swear a publick reformation without or against the consent of their Kings and Governors And therefore which is observable all Covenant-reformations from Joshuahs time to Josiahs time were regularly commanded by the good reforming Kings and chief Rulers but none by the Elders of the people against the cammand or consent of their Soveraign The Covenant that all the people stood to 2 King 23.3 was made by the King And the King stood by the Pillar and made a Covenant before the Lord and the Oath at which all Judah rejoyced was not by them imposed upon the King but the reforming King 2 Chron. 15.8 9 15. compared after that Asa had taken away the abominations out of the Land of Judah and Benjamin Verse 9. he gathered all Judah together This was the ground of the Assembly at Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Asa they assembled not to make this Oath at which all Judah rejoyced without the Kings Authority by which he did gather them together Sect. 9. If therefore there be no command or example in the Old Testament approving this practice the express commands of the New Testament forbidding things of this nature and tendency the scope of that place 1 Pet. 3. being to arme the Christian Churches against that vile Sect who called themselves Gnosticks as knowing more of the mysteries of the Gospel them others who taught amongst other things destructive to humane society the Doctrine of liberty and manumission to Christian subjects and servants as by considering of what followeth to the 12. Verse may appear And thus now having from Gods Laws shewed that there is no precept or president for subjects yea for the Elders of the people to enter into a Covenant for publick reformation without the consent or gathering together of the King and that therefore consequently they are no lawful Authority by the Law of God to impose an Oath upon others Sect. 10. This being considered I humbly conceive that we have nothing now left to resolve our consciences in this case but the known Law of the Laid and the Fundamental constitutions of its Government And I should think this very consideration should put such of the Ministry as are scrupulous to a little pause and make them to suspect their own judgements in this point all this while The resolving of this case of conscience being so different from those whose subject matter are not so perplexed intricate and doubtful that without the help of the Lawyer the Divine may prove but a blind guide and when the blind lead the blind our Saviour tells us both will fall into the duch Sect. 11. I have somewhere read a very good direction which if we had followed at first might have prevented this inquiry now concerning making Vows and Covents That no action which is matter of Question and Dispute especially of Religion should be the matter of a Vow And the instance that is given is in a case somewhat like ours which I desire may be laid to heart Sie Novatus Novitios suos compulit ad jurandum ne unquam ad Catholicos Episcopos redieriat Euseb l. 2. Eccles Histor For Novatus the Authour of the second great schism as I find in Mr. Brinsley's Arraignment of Schism for him to compel his Novices which he had drawn into that sin with him to enter into an Oath that they would never return to the Catholick Bishops never be ordained by them more or submit to their Jurisdiction the matter of this Oath was unlawful in a very mild sense because doubtful Sect. 12. And if the modes of Worship and Discipline were not doubtful and disputable amongst us when this Covenant of endeavouring to alter the Church-government was imposed what was the reason that there were such writings for and against the mode of Church-government c. almost ever since the Reformation of the Church of England Sutcliffe de Presbyt edit 1591. Bilsons Perpetual Church-government 1610. with those contests which were betwixt Dr. Downam and the Diocesans Tryal much about the same time with many others and continued to the sitting of the Parliament called by the King 1640. So that doubtless these matters were very disputable and to be made the subject of an Oath we now find dangerous as I
find that judicious and learned King of Divines as Mr. Ford of Northampton styleth King Charles the First Prognosticating this Covenant would be very dangerous because the ma ter doubtful Sect. 13. There being therefore no remedy now but to be more wise and careful for the time to come taking heed of being too dogmatical in what we hold as to matters of modes of Worship and Discipline because that other holy and good men are of that mind For likewise one of our opinion as to the binding power of the Covenant let us not Juraere in verba magistri any more neither lean too much to our understanding but consult with the Laws of God and of the Land especially in this case Sect. 14. The Act you know that requireth that we should declare that in this particular the Solemne League and Covenant layeth no tye or obligation upon me or any other to endeavour to change the Government of Church or State On the other side many are of this opinion that though it be the judgment of the major part of the Judges that are learned in the Laws of many great and learned Divines some that have written De Juramento and therefore well know the binding power of an Oath and of the major part of the representative body of the Kingdom yet notwithstanding are perswaded the Covenant that they have taken bindeth them to endeavour the alteration of the Government of Church or State Sect. 15. In this case therefore as I said before the Laws of the Land are to be consulted with for there being no other judge in this case but the known Laws of the Land we must stand to their determination as to the satisfying the conscience about the binding power of the Covenant For if by the Law of the Land it appeareth that the matter of the said Covenant as to this particular be by the Law unlawful and the Imposers thereof without a power by Law invested in them we may safely and with a good conscience declare That we hold that there lyeth no obligaaion upon me or any other person from the same I do verily believe that as to the Government of the State the altering it from a Monarchical to a Democratical Government could never be subscribed to by the Engagement even by such persons who do yet believe that the Covenant bindeth them to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church Now be pleased to consider whether the reason be not the same They would have altered the Government of the State without Law and others the Government of the Church without Law And that you may be the better perswaded of this give me leave to impart that little smattering that I have of the Law as I have learned from the Learned in that Science Sect. 16. Concerning therefore the Laws of the Land you may please to observe this in the general That the Law hath three fulcimenta or grounds and they are these First Custom or Usage Secondly Judicial Records Thirdly Acts of Parliament Now Judicial Records and Acts of Parliament they are but Declarations of the common Law and customs of the Kingdom Law is is not known but by usage and custom and usage proves the Law 10 Eliz. Plowden 316. Now if this be so and it being evident that the Government in this Kingdom as to Church and State as now it is established having been of so long continuance as the Histories of this Kingdom do tell us This custom and usage of Government so long exercised maketh it to be a Fundamental Law Plowdens Commentary 195. Sect. 17. To alter therefore a Fundamental Law as to the Government of Church and State can never be done lawfully but by those persons whom Use and custom Judicial Records and Acts of Parliament have invested with Authority so to do Now who these are the Law must tell us not the two Houses alone not the King alone but both together make up the Body politick that make Laws for the Government of Church and State Dier 38. fol. 59 60. The King is the head of the Parliament the Lords the principal members of the body the Commons the inferiour Members of the same 1 Ed. 6. cap. 2. All Authority and Jurisdiction spiritual and temporal is derived from the King And every Member that sits in Parliament taketh a corporal Oath that the King is supreme over all persons the King therefore must needs be above the two Houses of Barliament which is evidenced further thus That as the power of their Assembling is by virtue of his Writ so the time of their staying is determined by his Royal will and pleasure according to the usage and custom of the Land The two Houses therefore are not above the King and there being no Law to be made without the King and both Houses neither alone according to the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Land can alter or endeavour to alter the Government either of Church or State So that the altering of the Government except by such persons who have Authority by Law is an unlawful act in it self and the imposing of it upon others by an Oath makes it still more unlawful if the Imposers have not Authority by the Law of the Land so to do Sect. 18. Now I beseech you consider but as to matter of fact who did impose this Covenant and by the Law of the Land you will soon be resolved whether either the matter were lawful or the power lawful That the matter was unlawful thus appeareth not onely by what is already alledged but by what followeth That matter of an Oath is unlawful that is contrary to the Law of the Land The Government of the Church as it now stands being in the general secured by Magna Charta which great Charter is confirmed by 32. Acts of Parliament as I have read the first Article whereof runneth thus Salvae sint Episcopis omnes libertates suae Sect. 19. Now these general Laws of the great Charter of our Liberties and the Petition of Right there being no particular Laws against what is there contained such I say as are not repealed by a lawful power it is not the first Article of the Covenant as to the extirpation of that Church-government maketh the great charter void as to that particular I am apt to think in this case that an Oath imposed by persons that by their Oaths acknowledge the King supreme and above them that can make no Law therefore without the King and consequently can impose no lawful Oath by their Authority an Oath also as to the matter of it being unlawful as you have heard cannot make void a known Law or bind the conscience of the taker to endeavour the same But these Laws being in force do relatively bind the conscience to observe them and to endeavour by any power but those that made them to change and alter them I humbly conceive is above the sin of Disobedience and to swear to it maketh
the sin to be the greater Sect. 20. And therefore I am very much mistaken if I or any other may not without sin declare what the Act for Uniformity requireth That I hold there lyeth no obligation upon me or any other from the highest to the lowest as having no lawful power to endeavour to alter the Government either of Church or State As to the obligation that lyeth on us by the covenant to alter the government of the State I do not remember that there is any clause therein that giveth any ground for such thoughts and therefore I shall pass that over But for the further evidencing of the lawfulness of declaring the non-obliging power of the covenant according to the Act Sect. 21. I shall humbly offer further the judgment of the reverend Mr. Perkins who in his cases of conscience and other where doth resolve this doubt concerning the obliging power of an Oath both when it bindeth and when it bindeth not pag. 107. When an Oath bindeth not he resolveth in six cases Some of them I shall produce desiring that we may faithfully without prejudice apply to our case in hand Sect. 22. First an Oath bindeth not when it is against the Word of God and hath a tendency to sin I desire it may be considered whether this Oath in question being imposed by part of the two Houses be not as contrary to the Word as the Law of the Land and being an Vsurpation of the supreme Magistrates office as to publick Reformation hath not a tendency to sin whether it hath not a tendency to Injustice taking away without Law the liberties of such as are confirm'd so often by Magna charta whether also it doth not tend to the strengthning us in our disobedience as to the commands of our Superiours about Church-government and to the maintenance of the sin of discord and division about matters of this nature I am apt to think that when an Oath pleaded for produceth these effects it bindeth not for an Oath as Mr. Perkins saith is not to be a bond of iniquity Sect. 23 Secondly Mr. Perkins saith an Oath bindeth not when it is made against the wholsome Laws of the common-wealth because as he saith every soul is to be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13. Now whether to swear to change the Government either in Church or State be not against the wholsome Laws of the common-wealth I have shewed at large by the statute of the 25. of Edward 1. The great charter is declared to be the common Law of the Land and this as I have said secureth the liberties of the Church And if the Text that Mr. Perkins quoteth Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers doth not condemn the practice of all inferiours that shall impose a new Oath without a new Law especially to alter the old and ancient Government of Church and State I am much mistaken and desire to be better inform'd Sect. 24. Thirdly he saith further if the Oath be made by those who are under the Tuition of their superiours and have no power to bind themselves then the Oath bindeth not Now that the two Houses are under the Tuition of their superiour the King is very evident 1 Eliz. in Cawdryes case part 5. fol. 5. Every Member of the House of Commons and of the Lords too if I mistake not at every Parliament take their corporal Oaths that the King is the supreme and onely governor in all cases and over all persons and the said Statute of Eliz. is but declarative of the ancient Laws And in the first of Edward 6. all Authority and Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived from the King therefore all his subjects are under his Tuition and Jurisdiction Sect. 25. I desire this may be a little thought on for if the Imposers of the Covenant be as our Law teacheth and as their Oaths declare under the Kings Jurisdiction and so have no power by Law to bind themselves by an Oath without a new Law and this Law cannot be made without the Kings consent as Mr. Prin doth acknowledge in his soveraign power of Parliaments pag. 46 47. That the Kings assent is necessary to make Laws and ratifie the King being the Head of the Kingdom and of the Parliament And this Solemn League and Covenant being never enjoyned by any such Law but by such who had no power to bind themselves I humbly conceive that we may safely without sin declare that it bindeth not me or any other for that which inse in it self hath no binding power bindeth not any person whatsoever Sect. 26. Especially considering what Mr. Perkins saith surther That an Oath bindeth not page 527. of Conscience when persons are not Sui Juris but are under the power of another proving it out of Number 30.3 If a Woman vow unto the Lord and bind her self by a bond being in her Fathers house c. verse 5. If her Father disalloweth her the same day that he heareth all her vows and bonds they shall be of no value and the Lord will forgive her The case is also the same when a Wife voneth ver 7 9. Now I humbly conceive this was the case as to the Covenant when it was Imposed by part of the two Houses the Father of our Country so far disallowed the same that in the day that he heard thereof he Issued out his Proclamation against it from Oxford and in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after his discourse upon the Covenant in which are so many passages which laid together must needs conclude that he in no wise consented to it Sect. 27. That you may observe the deep sense that he had of his subjects sinning against God by taking it after that he had I say given his Judgment in the general of it that he reckoned it to be the pawning of his peoples souls to his subjects of Scotland he doth conclude with this prayer for us To thee O Lord do I address my prayer beseeching thee to pardon the rashness of my subjects swearing and to quicken their sense and observation of those Just Moral and Indispensable bonds which thy word and the Law of the Kingdom hath laid upon their consciences c. make them at length to consider that nothing violent and injurious can be religious Sect. 28. There is a fifth case pag. 525. and that is this an Oath bindeth not if it be made of a thing that is out of our power As if a man swear to his friend to give him another mans goods this I conceive may be applyed to the case in hand to alter the Government of Church or State is not in our power neither by the Law of God or the Land we cannot do it without very great injury to others as you have learn'd and therefore to endeavour after it is a sin Sect. 29. And sixthly saith he If at first it were lawful and after by some means becometh either impossible or
Function of the Ministry and that particular Order whereby in this or that society he is to execute this Function Which distinction as I said before serveth not onely for a very good answer to the Brownists that deny Lecturers to be true Ministers but likewise to justifie against the Non-conformists the execution of the Ministerial Function by this order of Deacons And indeed if it be considered the very term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture doth signfie one that ministers to another in a degree above him Saith our Saviour He that will be greatest amongst you let him be your Deacon in the Original And in this sense the supreme Magistrate being under God and serving in a place below him yet above the people he is called Rom. 13. The Deacon of God And there is some hint for this even out of 1 Tim. 3. he that diaconiseth it well gets himself a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compar'd with the Arabick Syâ—ack doth much confirm this sense good degree Implying that this Order of Deaconship is preparatory to further degrees of order in the Ministry viz. such as I have before quoted were executed in the Church in St. Jeromes time that is of Presbyter and Bishop Sect. 3. The ground therefore of this mistake I humbly conceive lyeth in this Plea 27. In that they call this order of Deacon to be an office of the Ministry called the Deacon whereas according to Mr. Ball in the title of Lecturers saith it is only that order in which the Ministerial Function is executed Therefore it may be fitly said of the Deacon the acceptation of whose name in the Scripture doth much justifie his imployment according to the practice of the Church of Engl. viz. what Mr. Nicholls saith is to be in helping the Priest in Divine Service c. And thus now having considered of these three great impediments to subscription in Queen Elizabeths time with whatsoever I have met with in the Writings of the ew Non-conformists in these times I hope it will appear to all sober Christians what I at first propounded to evidence upon inquiry That Subscription to all the 39. Articles the book of Common prayer and to all the rites and ceremonees there in is lawful and warrantable and may be done without sin Sect. 4. As to all the particular exceptions not here spoken to against several passages in the Common prayer and Rites of Administration mustered together in the Discourse of Liturgies I shall for brevities sake forbear to answer particularly having answered all by taking away the nail upon which they all hang. For whosoever shall seriously review that Discourse and observe his proofs may find that Mr. Nicholls argument against Deacons because their description in every circumstance is not to be found in the Word of God is brought in not onely against forms of prayer in this present Liturgy but all the circumstantial and ceremonial parts therein they are reducible to no command No warrant in the Word to use or stand up at Gloria Patri and the Creed no warrant to kneel at the Communion for the people to answer the Priest in prayer as in the Letany and other responds c. with more of that kind many of which I believe might be warranted from Scripture particularly and such as are included in general Texts thereof I desire therefore this may be considered that the Scripture is no way to be accused of insufficiency because that there are not particular commands for every mode in Worship for every order rite and ceremony in divine Administrations neither are they who command or they which obey and conform to the use of them to be accused of superstition and Will-worship My reasons for it besides what I have said before being the same both from Reverend Mr. Calvin and Mr. Ball before quoted which were very good in their dayes and are like to stand so while Christ hath a visible Church upon earth Sect. 5. Now before I go off from this subject I hope I may do good service in this momentous business to offer to your consideration the use that the pious and Learned Mr. Randall in his Lectures of the Church teacheth us to make of what hath been the subject of my Discourse being co-incident with his Saith he pag. 148. If we live in a Church where such things are ordained which are not simply unlawful we must take heed that we resist not this power or the things thereby ordained 1. This is the first rule and the Lord encline our hearts to keep it as a means to this followeth another 2. We must bridle our selves from distike this is the second unto which it should seem we are naturally subject even to dislike the commands of our Superiours about things not determined by God in his Word 3. But thirdly saith he bridle thy self specially from refusal Good men had need to have an especial care of themselves and that by the severe commands of God they bridle themselves from disobedience to the lawful commands of men Write therefore this golden saying of Reverend Calvin upon your hearts Nihil humano ingenio magis adversum est quam subjectio vere enim illud olim dictum est regis animum quemque intra se habere Calvin 1 Pet. 5.5 There is nothing to which the wit of man is more averse then subjection and therefore do men naturally bend their wits and parts in disputing the commands of their Superiors what is said of old is very true Every man hath within himself the heart of a King he would rule but not obey Follow therefore let us the counsel of this holy man especially to bridle our selves from refusal But yet saith he in the next place which I name the fourth Direction 4. Yield with some perswasion of conscience Sect. 6. For though we may not refuse to yield obedience in matters simply lawful in themselves yet every one is to yield with some perswasion of conscience it being surely a very dangerous thing for fear or any carnal respect to act doubtingly Considering therefore that scrupulous persons about doubtful things to them commanded by lawful Authority are in so great a strait that if they yield obedience doubtingly they sin if they do not conform they sin some perswasion of conscience is absolutely necessary Sect. 7. Now that which must perswade the conscience of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action either sacred or civil as to the substantials of Gods Worship and our humane converse must be the Word of God rightly understood and applyed And that which must perswade the conscience in circumstantials referring to the duties of the first and second Table not determined by God or left to our own liberty must be the Laws and commands of our superiors which though they bind the conscience yet not absolutely as the Law of God doth but relatively with respect to those general precepts which command us to yield obedience for conscience sake
unlawful for when it becometh impossible then we must safely think that God from Heaven freeth a man from his Oath which I think also is considerable in this case And saith he when it doth begin to be unlawful then it ceaseth to bind because the binding virtue is onely from the Word of God which bindeth not to any thing forbidden in the holy Scripture or that is unlawful either from the Word of God or the Law of the Land I beseech you consider that if when an Oath whose institution by God is to be the end of all strife shall have a natural tendency to the maintaining of strife division and contention to be the occasion of wars and commotions in the Land of our Nativity to administer matter and occasion of jealousie in our Superiours that while we judge our selves bound in conscience by an Oath that we have taken to endeavour to alter and change the Government whether he will or no there can be no safety Sect. 30. Consider I pray whether in this case an Oath which we have apprended lawful at one time may not now begin to grow unlawful because that the word doth forbid resistance of the powers that are over us and doth require obedience of us for conscience sake the contrary whereunto we do exert in our endeavours to change the Government though we should never be able to effect the same Sect. 31. And therefore upon all these considerations which I now offer to all peaceable spirits to you especially which should be the Embassadours of Peace and should with John the Baptist be Instrument by your Ministry to turn the hearts of children towards their Parents Let what I have offered as the judgment of that Orthodox and Reverend Mr. Perkins who being dead and so above all interest yet speaketh that as to the not binding power of an Oath which I hope may prevail with you to declare That you hold that there lyeth no obligation upon you or any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of the Government of Church or State especially considering that if I be not in a very great errour I have made it appear by the Law of God and of the Land that it is an unlawful oath and that it was imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom Both which are to be declared also and doubtlesse may very well be without sin Sect. 32. There is also another thing particularly to be declared against required by the said Act which I do hold needful to speak a word unto though I hope but very little if not at all scrupled by Presbyterian Ministers or People and that is to declare That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King and that I do abhor that trayterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are commissionated by him But of this in the next Chapter briefly CHAP. VII That to declare That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King and that we do abhor that trayterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person c. is very warrantable by the Law of God and of the Land Section 1. THat this Declaration may be chearfully made by all His Majesties subjects and especially the most zealous haters of Rome and Popery and also may be lawfully made without sin one would think there were no need to speak a word in that behalf But considering how much the Reformed Protestant Religion hath been dishonoured how much the. * Bilson the differences between Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion Edit 1536. lib. 3. pag. 92. Jesuites Doctrine of the lawfulness of the Subjects taking up arms against their Prince hath of late years been too much justified I shall write a little more then I intended referring the Reader to more of this subject in Bilsons Answer to this Jesuitical doctrine Bilsons subjection lib. 3. pag. 97. and so on Sect. 2. That this therefore may lawfully be declared that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take arms against the King c. I argue thus That which is unlawful by Gods Law and of the Land for me to do I may without sin declare to be unlawful But for subjects upon any pretence whatsoever to take arms against the King is unlawful and therefore I may declare according to the Act. Now that for subjects upon any pretence to take arms against the King is unlawful Rom. 13.1 may serve for a Scripture-proof instead of many Let every soul be subject to the Higher powers for there is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordained of God ver 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation It is you see a most dangerous sin to offend this Gospel-precept by our disobedience which commands and requires subjection of every soul No persons of what order or degree soever whether Ecclesiastical or Civil but are to be subject to the Higher powers thereof him as the Apostle Peter doth acknowledge to be the supreme the King whom the Laws of the Land doth invest with Supremacy of Jurisdiction in all Cases and over all persons in his own Dominions Sect. 3. But to resist the power this is to resist the Ordinance of God and therefore the punishment is expressed to be so dreadful to deter us from it For they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation instead of getting dominion over others they shall receive damnation to themselves Whoever therefore taketh up Arms upon any pretence whatsoever be the cause never so good against the supreme and higher powers must have his commission for it out of Gods Word otherwise you see it is a very great sin How contrary it is to Gods Law you may read more in Bilsons Christian Subjection I having I hope said enough to perswade to the lawfulness of making this Declaration from the unlawfulness of taking up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever it being so expresly forbidden to resist Rom. 13.2 now he that taketh up Arms against his King resisteth him Sect. 4. But further I may declare it is not lawful upon any pretence to take up Arms against the King because the Law of the Land forbids it and maketh it to be high Treason so to do Mr. St. John's speech pag. 6. the words of the Statute are 25 Edward 3. If any man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm this is declared to be Treason And so also is the arising to alter the Religion by Law est ablished 4 of Philip and Mary not repealed if I mistake not These being the known Laws of the Land such Ordinances of men to which we are to yield obedience for
conscience sake and for the Lords sake Therefore to declare that it is not lawful to take Arms against the King is warranted and may be done with a safe conscience Sect. 5. And that we may lawfully declare that I do abhor that trayterous position of taking Arms by his Authority against his person or against those that are commissioned by him this is agreeable to Gods word also The Scriptures which command us to honour the King 1 Pet. 3. mean his Person as well as his Authority it is so doubtless in reference to our natural Parents whom we are commanded to honour Command 5. that we honour their Persons as well as their Authority and therefore why not to our political Parents Further if I am to obey those which are commissioned by the King as Supreme That is those that are sent by him if this be our duty 1 Pet. 3. Then to take up Arms against those that are commissioned by him is sinfull and unlawfull Sect. 6. To affirm therefore that the Kings Authority is separable from his person and that I may take up Arms by his Authority against his Person It is High Treason by the Law of the Land and therefore may well be declared to be a trayterous position Sir Edward Coke in the 7. part of his Reports in Calvins Case saith thus fol. 11. In the reign of Edward the second the Spencers the Father and the Son to cover the Treason hatched in their hearts invented this damnable opinion That Homage or Oaths of Allegeance was more by reason of the Kings Crown or Authority then by reason of the person of the King upon which opinion they inferred these execrable and detestable consequences First if the King do not deme in him by reason in the right of the Crown his Lieges are bound by Oath to remove him Secondly seeing the King could not be removed by suit of Law that ought to be done per Aspertee that is by force Thirdly that his Lieges be bound to govern in aid of him and default of him All which were condemned by two Parliaments one in the Reign of Edward the second called Exilium Hugonis le opencer the other by the first of Edward the third chap. 2. all which Articles against the Spencers are confirmed by this last Statute the Article as I have read are extant in the Book called Veter a Statuta Sect. 7. Now if these things be so what manner of persons ought we to be as to our humiliation for what is past as to our obedience and subjection to the known Laws of the Land for the time to come and as to our satisfaction in the present case concerning the not binding power of the Covenant and the lawfulnesse of declaring against the taking up of Arms against the King And thus now having turned my heart in-side outward and shewed you what doth satisfie my conscience and may any other I suppose as to the lawfulness of declaring that I do hold there lyeth no obligation upon me or any other person from the Oath or covenant to endeavour the alteration or change of Government and how the same is in it self an unlawful Oath and imposed upon the subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and liberties of this Kingdom Sect. 8. I humbly conceive the counsel that was given by the Assembly of Divines in their exhortation to the taking of the Covenant is absolutely necessary to be followed which if I mistake not is this That if an Oath should be found into which any Ministers or others have entered not warranted by the Law of God and of the Land in this case they must teach themselves and others that such Oaths call for repentance not pertinacy in them I beseech you therefore if there be any consolation in Christ if any comfort of love if there be in you any compassion and mercy either to your own souls bodies estates with their peace and prosperity or likewise to all these great concerns of others which now lie at hazard by your means think of these things which I have laid before you Sect. 9. You especially who do more peradventure scruple the declaring against the binding power of the Covenant then many called Independents did long ago calling it an Almanack out of date or the Scotch Hook Be pleased to take these things into your calm and Christian consideration you more especially who have not corrupted your consciences by the purchase and possessing your selves of any of the Kings lands in Law called Patrimonium sacrum lex terrae pag. 5. or the Revenues of the Church which is sacriledge so to do Oh take heed that you drive not on the designes of those that we may suspect would fain involve us again in blood that they might lick up again those morsels that they have been forced to disgorge Sect. 10. And let the great concerns of your liberty and opportunity for the exercise of your Ministry for the good of souls the great doubtfulness at least of what you scruple as to the bincing power of the covenant to alter or endeavour a change in the Government of Church or State The assurance that you have to the contrary by the Body politick in this present Act of Parliament prevail with you to incline to what I have here offered to you upon this argument I have prefaced so much of the integrity of my heart and the sincerity of my intentions iâ— this Discourse that I shall now leave it to your consideration Sect. 11. And because that I am apt to believe that there are some amongst us that doe scruple obedience to the use of an imposed form of prayer should this scruple of the Covenant be removed this being greatly argued against by the Author of the Temperate Discourse about Liturgies and forms of prayer c. And also that there are others that though they should yield to the use of a Form yet not the Liturgy of the Church of England being assumed by the Authors of Plus ultra to be Tantum non the Mass-book by Discourse of Liturgies not to be used having been offered up to an Idol c. The Act of Uniformity requiting every Minister pag. 77. to declare That they will conform to the Liturgy of the Clurch of England as it is now by Law established Sect. 12. I shall through Gods assistance proceed by answering what is objected by these two aforesaid Authors make evident the lawfulnesse of Conforming to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now established by Law beginning first more generally with what is said by the Author of the Discourse of Liturgies a book which I have heard too much commended by some I much honour And then particularly by removing what is said by Plus ultra against the publick Liturgy as taken out of the Mass-book c. CHAP. VIII That Uniformity in publick Worship by obedience to an Imposed Form is lawful Section 1. COncerning Vniformity in publick Worship I have